629 vs redhawk

Just some personal info.

I have a 629. I use it for my sidearm in Grizz country when fishing and elk hunting.

For hunting trips, I load it with some old Speer 300 grain JFN (0,429" Uni-Core?) bullets to 1200 fps.

I don't shoot many of these, 100 rounds lasts 5+ years.

My 629 is no worse for the wear. It still works fine!

I am sure I will last for more rounds than I will ever shoot from it.
 
Last edited:
Loads that are marked "Ruger only" should only be fired through Rugers - no matter the caliber. Other than that you should be good to go.
That's my problem with the "rugers are stronger" schtick: it implies that Smiths are delicate, which they are not. Rugers are just built so much stronger than they need to be (for standard loads) that people started cooking up loads just for them.
If Smith's broke easy there wouldn't be so many old ones around.
 
My question is this: for all of the evidence that the 29s and for that matter, 629s are weaker, has there been as much evaluation of 629s that were made POST the endurance package? I mean the 629 debuted around 1980 IIRC, and that was before the endurance package. I guess what I'm saying is that there are many generations and variations of model 29s and 629s. Were all of them given equal consideration? I think its a well known fact that a majority of 29s, and perhaps even 629s would be PRE endurance package. Or is it a simple matter of even the endurance package 629s do not hold up either? I don't know either way, I'm just asking. All I can say is that the same Uncle mentioned above has a 629 Classic DX which has had zero problems. I also don't think he pushes the gun to the top limit, so then really, its probably irrelevant to the exact point of this thread: which gun could handle a steady diet of high pressure 44 mags the longest?
Click to expand...

John Taffin did a pretty good job of discussing the differences in the 29 and 629 generations in this article, up to the 29-6 and 629-4.

http://www.sixguns.com/range/SmithWesson44Mag.htm

Personally, I think my 629-4 Classic DX is just about the greatest revolver ever, and I wouldn't want to even try to shoot it loose with a steady diet Buffalo-bore equivalent rounds. The vast majority of my shooting with it uses either powder puff .44 special loads (Bullseye) or middle-range Titegroup or Unique loads under a lead bullet. When I want to shoot the boomers I use a 240 gr. JHP over 24 grains of H110, which is enough to take down anything in the lower 48 I believe, but I shoot a few, admire the results and otherwise don't abuse my gun. It's capable of way more power in a handgun than I will ever need. Just because I refuse to throw it over the rim of the Grand Canyon (or shoot thousands of heavy loads in it) doesn't mean it isn't a sweet-shooting gun at the apex of the revolver hierarchy.
 
Nothing is without cost.
For those that think the Redhawk is above distruction I have this. Several years ago I had a friend who was very into bowling pin competition. He decided that the heavy Redhawk would be just the ticket and it worked pretty good too, until the heavy cylinder beat itself against the bolt causing wear to the bolt, frame and cylinder.
Not sure how many rounds it took but he abandoned the idea after only 2 years.
 
John Taffin did a pretty good job of discussing the differences in the 29 and 629 generations in this article, up to the 29-6 and 629-4.
Click to expand...

I'd say that was a good article, thanks for posting, but if you read, he makes no mention of any stamina issues with the 629, whether pre or post endurance package. However, you also did not say he did. I learned by reading the article that you could say the "classic" version is basically a 3rd type of 629, with the lug. Is it possible that the lug, which would dampen the recoil, lessen the possible wear/damage to the gun from recoil?
 
he makes no mention of any stamina issues with the 629, whether pre or post endurance package
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but he alludes to the 629 revisions corresponding to the 29 revisions by adding two to the revision number, i.e. 629-1 similar to 29-3 and 629-4 similar to the 29-6, with the most significant change at the 29-5 (or 629-3) revision, with longer cylinder notches and other internal changes.
 
he makes no mention of any stamina issues with the 629, whether pre or post endurance package.
Click to expand...
True, but he does mention they are not as strong as the Redhawk.
I am an admirer, in fact a real fan of the Model 29. As such I treat it right. There is no way that the Model 29 or 629 in any variation can take the punishment that larger framed and heavier cylindered sixguns such as the Ruger Redhawk, Dan Wesson Model 44, or Freedom Arms .44 can handle and beg for more.
Click to expand...
 
until the heavy cylinder beat itself against the bolt causing wear to the bolt, frame and cylinder.
Click to expand...
This is a revolver we're discussing, correct? Where exactly on a revolver would one find the "bolt" ? Do you mean the crane/yoke?
 
So for the OP - who is buying a .44 mag and wondering which to get - would a good synopsis of the last 3 pages (that we can all agree on) be:
Buy whichever you like more. Except, if you're going to be shooting a lot of really hot loads (or want to try the "ruger only" loads), you should get the Ruger. ?
 
I've been watching this tread for three pages and still did not see anyone with real experience simply put a list: S$W pro's/con's, Ruger pro's/con's ... :rolleyes:
 
Buy whichever you like more. Except, if you're going to be shooting a lot of factory .44Mag loads or have a need for heavy cast bullets, you should get the Ruger. ?
Click to expand...
There, fixed it.


That's my problem with the "rugers are stronger" schtick: it implies that Smiths are delicate, which they are not.
Click to expand...
It implies no such thing.


I found a speer 170gr sp was a fine deer and hog hammer along with a 180gr hard cast for hogs.
Click to expand...
You're using the right bullet. The 125gr referenced above is not. Like I said, it's "adequate". It's the minimum. As in, no one will recommend a lesser cartridge for deer. Most will start at the .41Mag.
 
I've been watching this tread for three pages and still did not see anyone with real experience simply put a list: S$W pro's/con's
Click to expand...

Ok here goes, for the S&W:

Pros:

Ergonomics (grips, sights, feel, cylinder release, I personally like S&W TTs and THs)
Smooth DA trigger
Light crisp SA trigger (not always, but often)
Customer service
Forged, so not as bulky
Easy to do trigger jobs with
A VERY WIDE variety of alternate aftermarket grips to choose from. Grips *can* make a significant difference in shooting
Gun is lighter when it has a half lug (depending on your purpose, this can be an advantage)
Good enough to last a lifetime, unless you want to shoot hotter loads, and a lot of them

Cons:

Cost
Inability to handle a steady diet of "44 mag + P" from such makers as Buffalo bore
Older design than Ruger (ties into above)
Lighter weight than Redhawk (45 oz when with half lug vs Redhawk, 54oz) which increases felt recoil
2 piece frame, which some say weakens the overall design (I question how considerable this would be for shooting purposes when it is forged to begin with. Of course Ruger does not have a sideplate, but I think its because a sideplate is impractical with a cast frame)

I have not fired 10,000 rounds or anything like that through my S&W 29-2 but from firing it however many rounds I did, and firing my uncles 629 classic DX, these are my personal pros/cons for the S&W 629 (or even 29). I find the S&W 44 magnum to be a graceful instrument, and IMO its CONs are outweighed by the PROs. Hence, I have not sold my S&W 44 magnum! I actually have 3, but 2 are early collector's items, one being a first year example.
 
Last edited:
It's fact, not opinion but I see that some folks refuse to be swayed by facts. I'll obligate YOU to look up articles by John Taffin and Brian Pearce about loading the Redhawk to 50,000psi.
Click to expand...

No, that is opinion. H.P. White laboratories tested Ruger and S&W revolvers. They both failed at the same pressure which was approximately 2X SAAMI pressures.

Cast is NOT stronger than forged. Ruger only loads are done sometimes because the Ruger cylinder is LONGER and can accommodate a LONGER bullet.

With Ruger Super Blackhawks if you are running nuclear level loads you need to install a locking base pin.

When the Border Patrol still issued revolvers in the 1980's we had S&W 19's from the 1960"s and our current production 686's and late in 1988 the Patrol started buying Ruger GP100's. There were 10 Ruger's go out of service for every 1 Smith. I was an armorer so I saw it.
 
I've owned 2 Redhawks, if I ever buy another .44 it's be a S&W. Rugers are too large and too heavy tho I liked them at the time. I have seen Ruger only loads for the .45 Colt, didn't see any at the time for the .44 Mag. The Redhawk/Super Redhawks are built heavy but just between you and me a .44 Mag. loaded with 300 gr bullets is still a hand full especially in a 5-1/2" Redhawk. I went back to 245 gr bullets. Just tween us chickens, I've never seen a worn out S&W or Ruger .44.
 
I have the 629 4".

From what I have experienced I get worn out shooting 44 Magnum loads way before the gun will ever have a problem. I mostly shoot 44 Special out of it because I am an old man and shoot my other revolvers 10 to 1 over the 629.

I mostly pull out the 44 Magnums when I start mentally complaining about recoil in snub nosed 357 Magnum revolvers. I relearn lessons as to what recoil is when I do that....lol!
 
The only revolver I've owned that was worn out was a Ruger New Model Super Blackhawk.
It was also the most accurate hand gun I've ever owned. What wore out was the ejector rod spring, it got weak and was hitting the cylinder on the edge of the chambers, ruined all sic holes. No more accuracy, I stoned off the burrs but still no accuracy. Sent it to Ruger, said it met their specs.
 
Typically I'm a Ruger guy, although I don't really have an issue with S&W, I do own one. My biggest gripe about the Redhawk is the trigger system, it's just not good. The trigger can be made better, but for the subpar trigger alone, I would opt for the S&W, or just go with a Super Redhawk. Hopefully Ruger decides to offer more caliber options on their new "Super GP100", which seems to mate the GP100 frame to a Redhawk upper, which is a great idea, let's just hope we start seeing .44 Mag and .45 Colt Super GP100's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top